Hi,
re claritry: given the number of more than nits I found, the document
is clearly not ready. And, sure, once you read something a number of
times (and were part of the discussion), this clearly has an effect.
Re patent jargon: ok. I just looked at the IPR page and didn't see
anything come up. It still appears strange to me to use this kind of
language in an Internet Draft.
Jörg
On 04.07.19 19:26, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Joerg,
I just want to respond to two of your comments. I will let the authors chime in on the other comments.
On Jul 4, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Joerg Ott <ott@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
I am sorry but this is not acceptable. You are asking other people
to read the document and comment on it. As such, we may certainly
expect that what we get to review in last call is ready for RFC.
This document clearly is not.
Are their specific parts of the document that you are concerned about here on the clarity front? I have read the document and have not had any clarity issues (but that might be because I have been reading this for too long).
...
Detailed comments:
In several places, the text reminds of patent jargon. Should I
worry? There doesn't appear
to be any IPR disclosure.
Here, I'd really like to get an explicit response.
The authors have confirmed that they have filed any necessary IPR disclosures as per BCP78/79 as documented in the shepherd writeup.
Thanks
Suresh
